Justice Department Requests Extended Timeline in High-Stakes Second Amendment Dispute

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court for more time to submit briefs in a pivotal case concerning whether marijuana users can legally own firearms under federal law.

The case, U.S. v. Hemani, will determine the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) of the federal code—a law that prohibits “unlawful users of or addicts to controlled substances” from purchasing or possessing guns. The statute applies even to individuals who use cannabis in compliance with state-legal marijuana laws, creating a long-standing conflict between federal prohibition and expanding state legalization.

DOJ Requests Deadline Extension Citing “Press of Other Cases”

In a motion submitted Thursday, the Solicitor General’s office, led by D. John Sauer, a Trump appointee, asked the Supreme Court to extend the DOJ’s initial briefing deadline from December 4 to December 12, 2025.

The motion stated that both DOJ attorneys and counsel for the respondent agreed to the change, citing the “press of other cases” as the reason for the requested extension.

If approved, the revised schedule would give the respondent until January 20, 2026, to file a reply, with the government’s final brief due by February 19, 2026.

“Both parties consent to this briefing schedule,” Sauer said in the filing, emphasizing the need for adequate preparation in a case with broad constitutional implications.

A Case at the Crossroads of Gun Rights and Federal Cannabis Policy

The Hemani case could become the most consequential ruling yet on the intersection of Second Amendment rights and federal marijuana prohibition. After years of conflicting lower court rulings, the Supreme Court agreed this week to take up the case to determine whether banning gun ownership among people who use marijuana or other drugs is consistent with the Constitution.

The DOJ has maintained that the existing federal statute “targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms” and is therefore valid. The department argues that individuals who habitually use controlled substances—including cannabis—are at heightened risk of impaired judgment and unsafe firearm practices.

In a June filing, the solicitor general asserted that the law only temporarily restricts firearm possession, stating, “Anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms.”

The Government’s Chosen Case: Strategic Positioning by DOJ

While several similar cases are currently pending before federal courts, the Justice Department specifically urged the Supreme Court to take up U.S. v. Hemani. The defendant, DOJ noted, was not only a cannabis user but also admitted to using cocaine and previously selling drugs—making him a less sympathetic representative for marijuana users seeking to challenge the law.

By selecting Hemani over other pending cases involving only cannabis consumers, DOJ appears to have positioned itself for a more favorable outcome.

Conflicting Court Decisions Fuel Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court’s decision to review Hemani follows years of conflicting rulings among lower courts. Several appellate courts have questioned whether Section 922(g)(3) aligns with the historical traditions of firearm regulation—a key standard set by the Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which tightened constitutional scrutiny for gun laws.

Federal courts in Oklahoma, Texas, and Rhode Island have previously ruled that the prohibition is unconstitutional when applied to cannabis users, arguing that there is no clear historical precedent for denying Second Amendment rights to individuals solely for drug use.

Other courts, however, have upheld the statute, pointing to the government’s longstanding authority to restrict gun ownership for groups deemed dangerous or unreliable.

Courts Continue to Grapple with Constitutional and Historical Context

The debate hinges on whether marijuana users can be considered inherently dangerous. In an Oklahoma case earlier this year, a federal judge struck down an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged after police found cannabis and a firearm in his car. The judge ruled that the government had failed to prove a historical basis for disarming nonviolent drug users.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, sending it back to a lower court for further review. Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit recently sided with medical marijuana patients, finding that the government must demonstrate a tangible risk of future harm before stripping gun rights.

Other federal appellate courts, including the Third and Eighth Circuits, have issued mixed opinions, with some requiring “individualized judgments” to determine whether the law is constitutional as applied to specific defendants.

Federal Statute Language Under Scrutiny

While the Justice Department repeatedly refers to “habitual users” in its legal filings, that word does not appear in the actual statute. Section 922(g)(3) prohibits any person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms. Critics argue that the law’s broad scope sweeps up responsible, law-abiding individuals who use cannabis for medical or recreational purposes in states where it’s legal.

Advocates for reform say that the law unfairly treats cannabis users more harshly than alcohol consumers, despite similar or greater risks associated with drinking.

Several Republican senators recently told Marijuana Moment that it’s inconsistent to allow alcohol users to own firearms while denying that same right to cannabis consumers, particularly given the widespread legalization of marijuana at the state level.

Federal and State Tensions Continue to Deepen

As of 2025, 38 states have legalized medical marijuana and 24 allow adult-use sales, but cannabis remains illegal under federal law. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) continues to enforce the gun ownership prohibition under Section 922(g)(3), issuing regular reminders that anyone using marijuana even with a state-issued medical card cannot legally purchase or possess firearms.

Last year, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents ahead of the launch of the state’s medical cannabis program, cautioning that participation would disqualify them from gun ownership under federal law.

In response, Kentucky lawmakers introduced a resolution urging Congress to amend federal law to protect medical marijuana patients’ gun rights, though no action has been taken. Governor Andy Beshear (D) has voiced support for such reform, saying he’d like to see “even more sweeping change” at the federal level.

Broader Implications for the Cannabis and Gun Rights Debate

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in Hemani could have nationwide implications. If the justices uphold Section 922(g)(3) as constitutional, it could solidify federal authority to restrict firearm ownership for all illegal drug users, including cannabis consumers. Conversely, a ruling against the government could dismantle one of the most controversial firearm prohibitions still enforced in the U.S.

Legal scholars note that the Court’s interpretation may hinge on how narrowly or broadly it defines “unlawful user” and whether it views marijuana as comparable to historically restricted substances.

For now, the DOJ’s request for more time suggests that the government is preparing a meticulous defense one that could set the tone for how the federal government reconciles gun rights with evolving cannabis laws.

OG source Download Article